【新唐人2012年12月29日訊】2008年註冊成立的「北京成龍慈善基金會」，日前被爆從「中華少年兒童慈善救助基金會」接收了1800萬元的違規資金，「兒慈會」雖舉行說明會公開報表，但網友再度爆料說，「成龍基金會」很有可能是為了提取10%的管理費。
網路舉報人周筱贇24號再次在微博爆料說，「成龍基金會」接收「中華少年兒童慈善救助基金會」1800萬元違規資金，很有可能是為了提取10%的管理費。
「兒慈會」在2011年度工作報告上宣稱，「回家的希望救助專案」直接用於救助被拐賣兒童的1903萬，但其實是把1800萬打給了成龍基金會。但最終直接用於受助人的捐款只有99萬，成龍基金會收到這1800萬根本沒有去救助被拐賣兒童，而是用於「貧困大病兒童專案救助」。剩餘的錢則是分50萬、200萬不等流向了各地方慈善機構。
對此，成龍基金會工作人員回應表示：那個表格做得確實很粗糙，這筆錢進帳的時候，指定的是兩個用途，可是這筆錢進帳之後它卻只寫了一個用途。
美國南卡羅萊納大學艾肯商學院教授謝田：「我想這個基金會，如果善款遭到挪用的話，說表格作的粗糙，這些實際上都是說不過去的，也不能接受，因為在任何國際社會，正常社會國家，一般正常來說，它有很嚴格的財務監管制度，如果表格錯誤的話，那這位CPA或會計師就會發現，何況是這麼大的一筆鉅款。」
美國「南卡羅萊納大學艾肯商學院」教授謝田還表示，基金會接受捐款，如果發生挪用或盜用的情況，將失去公信力，不僅基金會受到損失，連帶的關係事業都會受到損失，
謝田：「實際上我們發現，正常社會還是有可能會有一些慈善機構的負責人去濫用和盜用，但這畢竟是小規模的，像中國這種規模的話，這樣的事情，正好說明，不受監督制衡的國家，沒有輿論監督的國家，中國人民的捐款是善意的捐款，注定要被挪用的。」
對於未來如何避免類似的問題發生，成龍慈善基金會工作人員的回答是：我只能說，捐款人自己盯好自己的捐款。
憲政學者陳永苗：「因為現在的慈善都是官方的，其實你怎麼立法都沒有用，它注定就是做洗錢機構，要不就做為貪污的工具，只要他現有的壟斷機制不改變的話，他怎麼搞出來的，怎麼生出來的，都是那樣子的。」
周筱贇12月10號通過微博舉報，「中華少年兒童慈善救助基金會（兒慈會）」2011年的帳目上，一項「支付其他與業務活動有關的現金」金額為48.4億元，遠遠高於當年接受捐贈收到的現金8000多萬元。
當晚，兒慈會發文澄清，財務人員的重大失誤將帳目中一項本應為4.75億元的金額，寫成了47.5億元。
「中國基金會透明指數2012排行榜」顯示，中國2213家基金會平均透明度得分僅為45.79分，約佔總分129.4分的35%，行業整體透明度得分「不及格」。
採訪/陳漢 編輯/黃億美 後製/郭敬
Questionable Chinese Charitable Foundation Account
It was exposed recently that the Jackie Chan Charitable
Foundation (JCCF), incorporated in 2008,
received 18 million yuan of illegal funds from the
“China Children Charity Relief Foundation (CCCRF)."
Even after the CCCRF held a meeting to offer an explanation,
netizens continue to disclose that the JCCF is likely extracting 10% as a management fee.
On Dec. 24, Internet whistleblower Zhou Xiaoyun again
posted on his microblog that
the JCCF received 18 million yuan from the CCCRF,
which is likely his management fee.
The CCCRF claimed, in the 2011 annual report, that
19.03 million yuan went directly to a special project called
“Hope to Return Home,” which allegedly rescues abducted children.
In actuality, only 999,000 yuan was directly used
for abducted children.
They claimed that the 18 million went to the JCCF,
where it was used for sick and poor children instead of abducted children.
Other small amounts of money, ranging from 50,000
to 200,000 yuan, went to different charitable organizations.
In this regard, the JCCF staff responded that the reported
figures were a rough estimate.
The money received was meant for two purposes,
but the money specified on record shows only one purpose.
Xie Tian, Professor of University of South Carolina Aiken
Business School: “If the money was misappropriated, using a rough chart as an excuse is unacceptable.
In any international community, any normal society and country,
there will be a very strict financial regulatory system.
If there are mistakes in the chart, let alone such a huge sum
of money an accountant or CPA will discover it."
Professor Xie Tian of University of South Carolina Aiken
Business School said that
if the Foundation loses money due to misappropriation or theft,
it will lose its credibility.
It damages not only the foundation but also other associated
businesses.
Xie Tian: “In fact, we found that in a normal society, some
directors of the charitable organizations may misuse the donation, but it is typically on a small-scale.
However, events of this magnitude happen in China,
explaining the unsupervised checks and balances of our country.
In a country that doesn’t allow public opinion as supervision,
donations from the Chinese people out of good intention are destined to be misappropriated.”
As to how to avoid similar problems in the future, JCCF staff
answered, “I can only say that the donors need to watch their own contributions.”
Constitution scholar Chen Yongmiao: “Charity in China
belongs to the officials.
Actually, no matter what legislation we have, its aim
is for money laundering, or as a tool of corruption.
As long as the existing monopoly mechanism does not
change, everything will remain the same.”
On Dec. 10, 2012, Zhou Xiaoyun reported on his microblog,
“In 2011, the CCCRF paid out 4.84 billion yuan for one item, business related activities.”
That amount of money was far more than the 80 million
they received from donations.
That night, the CCCRF issued a document to clarify
the financial officer’s major mistake that 4.75 billion yuan should have been reported as 475 million yuan.
In 2012, “Transparency ranking of China Foundations”
showed that the average transparency of 2,213 foundations
is only 45.79 points, accounting for about 35% of the total
score of 129.4 points. The entire industry fails to make a passing grade.
